Your Right to Know

RICHMOND, Va. — The U.S. Supreme Court refused yesterday to hear an appeal of a lower-court
ruling that struck down Virginia’s anti-sodomy law.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s office appealed a March ruling by a three-judge panel of the
Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which declared Virginia’s law
unconstitutional.

The ruling came in the case of 47-year-old William Scott MacDonald, who was convicted of
criminal solicitation for allegedly demanding oral sex from a 17-year-old girl. His conviction came
two years after the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision effectively struck down anti-sodomy laws in
that state and several others. The appeals court cited that 2003 ruling in its 2-1 decision.

Cuccinelli argued that the Texas ruling did not apply to sex acts between adults and minors.

“As we’ve said from the beginning, this case was never about sexual orientation or private acts
between consenting adults,” Cuccinelli spokesman Brian Gottstein said yesterday. “Virginia’s law
couldn’t be used against consenting adults acting in private. It only applied to offenses committed
against minors, against nonconsenting or incapacitated adults, or in public.”

Cuccinelli, the Republican candidate for governor, has said Virginia prosecutors have used the
law to prosecute child molesters.

“The Supreme Court made it perfectly clear in 2003 that laws that broadly prohibit certain kinds
of sexual acts are unconstitutional,” said Rebecca Glenberg, legal director of the ACLU of
Virginia, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the MacDonald case.

Also yesterday, the court:

• Declined to consider whether three Duke University lacrosse players at the center of a rape
allegation scandal five years ago should be allowed to pursue federal civil-rights claims against
police officers over the way they handled the investigation.

The three players, David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, are seeking to hold the
city of Durham, N.C., accountable for pursuing criminal charges against them based on the testimony
of a stripper, Crystal Mangum, whose story was later discredited.

• Appeared divided over whether lawyers, insurance brokers and others who worked with convicted
swindler Allen Stanford could avoid lawsuits by investors seeking to recoup losses incurred in his
$7 billion Ponzi scheme.

Stanford’s fraud involved the sale of certificates of deposit by his Antigua-based Stanford
International Bank. Much of the litigation centers on whether these qualified as securities under
applicable laws.

Stanford is serving a 110-year prison sentence.

• Sought the legal views of the Obama administration in a medical device manufacturer’s appeal
of a ruling that the company can be sued by a man who was left paralyzed after using one of its
products.

Arizonan Richard Stengel says federal law regulating medical devices does not trump his claims
under state law because Medtronic Inc. failed to alert the FDA to known risks associated with the
pain medication pump and catheter that was implanted in his abdomen.